Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with them ('只读，不扣款'). It adds real context beyond those annotations: the response includes a masked account and available balance, and the call transparently re-handshakes when the connection is not logged in or has expired. It still omits how a credential is obtained or what the response looks like on failure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single dense clause with no filler, and the primary action comes first, followed by the fallback behavior and the safety note. Its compactness is appropriate, but the credential requirement is compressed into an unexplained phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a tool that requires a patterned ID plus a 32–200 character secret, the description leaves the agent with no guidance on obtaining either value or on how this tool relates to connect_account and disconnect_account in the connection lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and both parameters (connection_id with its MC- pattern and connection_credential) are completely undocumented. The description says '凭私有连接' but never explains what a private connection is, where the credential comes from, or how it relates to connect_account, so the agent must infer both required values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and a set of resources: query connection status, masked account, and available balance. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from mutation siblings such as connect_account, disconnect_account, and pay_with_balance by stating '只读，不扣款', but it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies that the tool is for checking connection state, and it mentions a failure condition ('未登录或连接过期时重新连接'), but it does not say which sibling to use instead. It does not make explicit whether the agent should call this before other tools or what to do when the call fails, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.